Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-28 Minutesf t i • METING OF WATER & SEWER CCM= n'EE AND BOARD OF DIRECIURS A meeting of the Water & Sewer in attendance, was held on Tuesday, Directors Room, City Administration Committee, with the Board of Directors September 28, 1982, in the Board of Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Bumpass, Lancaster, Todd, Osborne, Sharp, Noland, and Johnson; City Manager Grimes and City Clerk Kelly; manber of the press and audience. Also in attendance were City Engineer Don Bunn and prospective Board Members Marion Orton and Lewis Johnson. Mr. J.E. McClelland of McClelland Consulting Engineers attended the CH2M-Hill presentation. Mr. Carl Yates of M&Goodwin, Williams & Yates attended the Metcalf & Eddy presentation. INTERVIEWS OF FIRMS/FEASIBILITY STUDY OF LAND APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER It had been determined by the Board of Directors and the Water & Sewer Committee, at their meeting of September 20, 1982, to interview three firms for the purpose of selecting one to perform the Feasibility Study in con- junction with the Land Application of Municipal Wastewater. The firms present for these interviews were• CH2M-Hill, of Montgomery, Alabama, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., of Des Plaines, Illinois, and Law Engineering, of Marietta, Georgia. PRESENTATION - CH2M-Hill Mr. Cliff Thompson, Principal in Charge of this Project, spoke to the Board and introduced the other members of his team who would be involved in this proejct. Mr. Gary Jardine, Agronomics & Agricultural Engineer, would be in charge of the land application criteria development, along with another agronomist, Don Fox, and two soil scientists; Dr. John Nemeth would be Project Manager. Mr. Thompson indicated that Dr. Nemeth had been chosen as Project Manager because of his experience and education, particularly his involvement in over 40 land application projects. Dr. Nemeth would be responsible for the everyday control of the project, and the quality of work that is performed. The CH2M-Hill team would be working in conjunction with McClelland Consulting Engineers and they would be assisted by support staff of laboratory, survey, design/graphics and cost engineering personnel. He added that Mr. Tan Searle cold be in charge of Distribution & 'Treatment Engineering. Dr. Nemeth addressed the group and discussed the technical approach their firm would take on the project. He stated the program, as set out in their proposal, would have as its goal the determination of the feasi- bility for treating the treated wastewater in a land treatment program. The basic medium in such a system is soil, he stated, and they would try to use the active profile of the land to treat biodegradable waste, treated wastewater, regardless if what the reaction might be. The goal would be to manage migration or storage of materials, volitization of other con- stituents, such as in the event of rainfall, whereby another migration would be necessary to control surface runoff. 1 1 i He indicated that their first step would be to determine the design basis and to do this they would determine solid waste characterization and site characterization. The design constraint they would take would not violate ground water quality for drinking water or surface water. He said that the distribution of the treated wastewater would be centered on slow rate irrigation. He added that once waste and site has been characterized, they would look at the soil waste's assimilative capacity, and he indicated that usually one parameter in the waste would surface to call for the need of a certain amount of land. He added that they had developed in their Task Approach several decision points for stopping or redirecting the emphasis of the project. Mr. Jardine stated that in order to meet the timeframe of completion they would use a concentrated workshop approach, to provide the screening of land treatment process alternatives in a controlled, systematic and logical manner. They would bring in their key personnel, along with representatives of the City and local experts from the University, as well as SCS personnel. The technical expertise and experience of each would enable them to develop options and conceptual plans and cost estimates through the use of brainstorming sessions. He sited the various places in the area where wastewater could be taken, referring to woodlands, both public and private, private farms, and city owned property. He added that in the early stages of their Task One they would look at the idea of split flow versus single basin approach in more detail, and determine if one, or both, should be carried on through the detailed evaluations. In determining land selection, they would review criteria such as topography, flood hazards, land use, permeability, drainage, etc., and determine which land areas would be suitable for various modes of land treatment. He referred to the larger parcel of land in the area, which may be utilized, such as the 2,000 acres of Campbell Soup property The management options regarding land selection would be either to own the land outright, lease it, or arrange for a long-term cooperative agreement with the growers He indicated that it might be determined that 100% ownership might not be cost effective. After discussion on the management of the land, they would go out and talk with the landowners, and he feels this can best be accomplished with a City/Consultant team. The team would include an agricultural engineer, in order to best relate to the landowners/growers, in the person of Dr. Nemeth. He would stress to the landowners the needs of the City to operate and manage a successful land application system, and how those needs would reflect the needs of the landowners. Once the land has been selected, they would determine the capabilities of the soils on these lands. This will involve a field effort where they would look at the surface soils from a chemical and physical standpoint, as to their ability to assimilate the chemical constituents and the hydraulic loading which they will find. They will look at subsurface environment, in terms of where ground water is, how deep it is, and how it fluctuates seasonally. Mr. J.E. McClelland of McClelland Consulting Engineers addressed the group concerning the background and reputation of CH2M-Hill. He stated that through publications, periodicals, papers and texts, they were aware of the reputation of this firm as being the outstanding firm in wastewater management. In his contacts with Dr. Cliff Thompson they had discussed 2 t i 3 the project and had many exchanges of data and he was very impressed with the organization of the company. He indicated that their support staff consists of civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical, environmental engineers, as well as a soil scientist, an agronomist, a bacteriologist, a bacteriologist, and a botanist. He feels this is important in addressing land application. He added that Dr. John Nemeth has been a soil scientist, a land application specialist, and an agronomist, and he is foremost in his field. He added that their work plan is well conceived, and includes a goal that is most reachable economically and environmentally, with the use of various plateaus along the way whereby the City would have the opportunity to make decisions on whether to discontinue the project or go forward to completion. McClelland Engineering Consultants would have an integral role in the project, and in this way their joint expertise would best be utilized. Mr. Thompson concluded by expressing his appreciation for the oppor- tunity to make this presentation and he submitted their sealed cost proposal to City Engineer Bunn. In a question period, it was determined that the project in Tuolumne County, Sonora, California was the most similar to the project in Fayetteville. There, the wastewater (secondary treated wastewater) is stored in a reservoir about 1800 acre feet, for a period of about fifty days, and then it is distributed to approximately 19 farmers and eventually it will, as the flow increases, be distributed to about 30 farmers, for a variety of crops -- pastures, hays, etc. They also sited Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority in Conway, South Carolina. This project has a variety of options from irrigation of dimes in a beach situation to salt marshes, to wetlands that are forested, to wetlands that are marshes. They are looking at a wide variety of land media in that project. While it is an innovative study, it is not yet an operating system. They sited Ocean Springs as a project which is similar to Fayetteville in topography and soils. Another project in British Columbia is similar in that the area has a river and a valley with a lake, is hilly, with several landowners. They have more severe weather in that region, which would constitute differences, however. They indicated that their plan is to begin the project by analyzing the data in the Facility Plan and then using their expertise, refine it and narrow down the number of sites. He indicated that the amount of land could range from 2,000-6,000 acres, but that they are not in a position to know in advance how much land would actually be necessary. Director Osborne reiterated, along with Director Lancaster, that the firm would have to enumerate their various options, along the project processes, to the Board of Directors for their approval, before additional expenditures could be authorized. Director Sharp asked whether it would be possible to take a group of landowners to a site in progress to view it, and Mr Jardine stated that if they felt this was necessary, it could be arranged, but he added that they would stress to the farmers the importance of nitrogen and phosphorus as an asset to them, and stress the savings of dollars in terms of fertilizer replace. The presentation concluded and Mr. Thompson thanked the group for their attention. t t i • PRESENTATION - METCALF & EDDY, INC. Mr. Charles Pound, Regional Vice President, addressed the group and thanked them for the opportunity to present their qualifications and their proposal. Mr. Pound stated that Metcalf & Eddy would act as the lead consulting engineers, with McGoodwin, Williams & Yates, under the direction of Carl Yates, acting as subcontractors on the project. He added that Ron Crites would be Project Manager on this project, and he stated that he and Ron had been working on land treatment systems for the last twelve years collectively. He had, personally, been involved in land application for twenty years Mr. Pound stated that Metcalf & Eddy would provide the project direction, management, technical expertise and the final work report to the City. The services of McGoodwin, Williams & Yates would be on an as -needed basis, but would include providing the historical per- spective to Metcalf & Eddy, and would provide a knowledge of local people. In this way Metcalf & Eddy would be familiar with local, influential landowners, who can then become leaders in their part of the community and will provide confidence that others will be able to draw from in order to join in a land application system. He added that they have secured the services of two technical consul- tants to assist them in specialty areas. One is Dr. William Sapper, professor, Penn State University, who is an authority in woodland irriga- tion. His training is in forest management and for the last twenty years he has been involved in the application of municipal wastewater to forest lands and to crop lands. Because that is a possibility for this area, they felt his special expertise was warranted. The other tech- nical consultant to assist them is Dr. Ara Demi.rjian, who brings with him a wealth of management capability. He is managing the largest land treatment system presently in -operation in the U.S., and as a result of his receiving large federal funding, he has been able to perform a variety of R & D work, and that resulting scientific dat can be applied to this project. An overview of their Tasks, as outlined, would be to identify sites, evaluate the sites, determine the land requirements, evaluate management options, analyze economics, review the options with regulatory agencies, develop an implementation plan and prepare a report to the City of Fayetteville. He stated that identification of sites in the Facility Plan was fairly straightforward, and the Plan had identified more than enough acreage both east and west of the City, to satisfy initial identification needs. The evaluation of sites is important and they propose to have their soil scientists come and talk to the Soil Conservation Service, as well as Dr. Rutledge of the University, to get a feel for the soil's variability and what constitutes a typical profile. Then with their help they would do field work involving plotting of certain properties and location for placement of backhoe pits. The backhoe pits would determine how thick the soil is, what materials are there, and what the permeability of the soil is If it is dense, the application rate will be reduced. If it is high enough that it would take wateron a long period of time then the application rate can be higher and the land area requirement can be reduced. With regard to water balance, the key is percolation and evaporation, and how much storage should be considered because of the very warm fall period in the City. If they determined to go to woodlands irrigation, during the 4 • t 1 i • 5 winter time, it could be run directly into the woodland areas. It could thus rediae the land requirements and storage requirements. Regarding management options, they feel a plan should be developed that will give farmers the opportunity to contract with the city for water, lease land to the city, or for the city to lease the lands, or to purchase and leaseback the lands. He proposes small meetings with the farmers to determine a consensus in terms of land application. He added that Mr. Eldon Wilds, who operates a system in El Reno, Oklahoma, said he would be interested in caning to Fayetteville to talk to a group of farmers and tell them about his experience. He has been operating a secondary application system covering 700 acres. With regard to the economics of the project, he stated that they would review the cost estimates to be certain they agree with the processes involved. They would not develop any new alternatives in that regard. They mentioned that even if land application alternative costs exceeded conventional treatment of discharge by as much as 15%, the EPA would still consider this alternative as cost effective for their funding purposes. He added that review with regulatory agencies would take place all the way through the 100 -day period. They have talked with Martin Roy of the Pollution Control & Ecology Division, as well as Tom Skinner of the Department of Health, and that they intended to keep these people involved and present interim reports to them on the progress of the project. When siting why Metcalf & Eddy should be selected as the design team, he stated that their experience and knowledge in the area, along with their clear and concise task approach, would enable them to complete the project in a straightforward manner. They would maintain clear lines of communication with the City representatives, and would provide some examples of typical projects regarding cost and schedule management, particularly with regard to budget, engineering schedules, etc. He referred to their experience in Muskegon (5500 acres), and in Bakersfield (5,000) areas). He said the Bakersfield project was designed for approxi- mately 19 million gallons per day, and he added that the process there is to carry wastewater from the primary plant to aereated lagoons then to storage, them to irrigation. Mr. Pound added that he (Metcalf & Eddy) had revised the EPA's popular Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants, and that he had worked with Martin Roy of the EPA in putting together workshops to introduce land application to many Arkansas consulting engineers, approxi- mately ten years ago. He added that the Design Manual has been used by consultants across the country as a reference for designing land applica- tion systems. In the question period, Director Johnson asked how the firm planned to keep the Board of Directors informed, and Mr. Pound indicated that they would provide, in writing, an appraisal of plans periodically, at least once a month. He added that he would be available to the Board when he was visiting Fayetteville in conjunction with the project. l 1 6 City Engineer Broin asked at what point in the time schedule the City would have the opportunity to make decisions on the project, and Mr. Pound said that it would be at the end of the evaluation of sites and field work (approximately Week Five), and also after they have met with farmers and obtained their response (approximately Week 8-9). He added that this is their planned approach, but this approach could be altered depending on unforeseen events. City Engineer Bunn asked about the utklization of backhoe pits, and Mr. Pound indicated that they feel this is the best means of identifying soil layers and make a determination of what the infiltration level is. Mr. Crites added that it will enable them to determine the quality of ground water and the geologic data that is available in the area. Director Johnson asked whether they were going to concentrate on the sites which were identified in the Facility Plan, and, if this is done, could they give an estimate of the amount of land that could be required. Mr. Pound indicated that the Facility Plan had identified land primarily to the east of the Plant, and since that is good land it would be a good first choice, but it may be determined that the land to the west would be better suited to this prupose, even though it would require the use of a pipeline, but it would be an attrac- tive alternative. He added that the amount of land estimated in their pre- liminary numbers was approximately 3600 acres, based on permeability, and that better permeability would reduce the land requirements. Mr. Pound added that Metcalf & Eddy would identify errors in the Facility Plan and attempt to correct those errors Don Bunn, City Engineer, asked if they planned staged construction, would the EPA allow or encourage this, and Mr. Pound stated that they would have to have a ccumitment for the land and the landowners who could be participating, in order for the EPA to allow this staged construction. Mr. Pound, in response to Director Osborne's opinion that the City would continue growing at a fast rate, indicated that the 3600 acres being used as an estimate were for a period of 20 years, and he added that the land application system is the easiest to extend by the addition of pipeline. Director Osborne referred to the information from the EPA guidelines which states, "If leases can be shown to be cost effective, as compared to purchase, then lease payments are grant eligible." Mr. Pound stated that his advice would be to place the funds for this project in an escrow account in order to take advantage of the grant funding. In conclusion, Carl Yates of McGoodwin, Williams and Yates spoke to the group and reiterated the experience and reputation of Metcalf & Eddy. He stated that in the time he has been working with the firm he has been very impressed with them and feels they will do a fine job for the City. He agreed with Mr. Pound that Metcalf & Eddy should identify any errors in the Facility Plan and attempt to correct those errors. Mt. Pound submitted a sealed fee proposal to City Engineer Don Bunn and added that it is on a cost plus fixed fee basis. He thanked the group for the opportunity of presenting their proposal to the City and added that he felt the firm was very well equipped to meet the challenge of this project for the City of Fayetteville. 1 1 • PRESENTATION - LAW ENGINEERING Director Noland introduced Mr. Jim Wallace, Manager of the Natural Resources and Waste Management Division of Law Engineering, who would respond to any questions of an administrative nature, and who would make a brief statement of the qualifications of his firm before the technical presentation. He stated that Dr. Glenn Taylor and Dr. Wade Nutter, had jointly developed their proposal, and that Dr. Taylor, in the absence of Dr. Nutter, would make the presentation, along with Dr. Michael Overcash, a chemical engineer, who is a nationally -recognized expert in land treatment, particularly in the assimilation of waste in soils. He also introduced Mr. Glenn Ferguson, who is Senior Project Engineer with Terracon Consultants, Inc., and he stated that Mr. Ferguson will be responsible for the drilling and testing of the physical characteristics of the soil, which is so important to the total project. He stated that Law Engineering, founded in Atlanta 35 years ago, has 1,000 employees, in 26 branch offices. Their areas of service are categorized as geotechnical studies, environmental assessuetLts, hazardous waste management, land treatment, materials testing, and various types of laboratory analyses. He stated that their Project Manager approach can be summarized in this manner. The Project Manager keeps up with the technical aspects of the project and the schedules. They generally employ an independent review board to assure that the project personnel stay in line with their objectives. With regard to the area of Wallace stated that the project a detailed statement of work in allowing them to stay on budget • budget on a project of this type, Mr. manager received, on a weekly basis, progress, which is a great asset in 7 He reviewed to their system of Quality Assurance/Quality Control. He stated that their QA/QC system revolves around a senior engineer, who has been certified by the company, after meeting extensive require- ments for experience, and after having been tested by a review board within their company. All of their work is supervised and checked by professional engineers. He then turned the presentation over to Dr. Michael Overcash, Ph.D. Dr. Overcash stated that the land treatment system in Fayetteville is an innovative one, on a national basis, in its approach to the management of wastewater from a proper municipal facility. He reiterated that Law Engineering is committed to providing the best design in the field of land treatment technology. Dr. Overcash went into detail on the phases for implementation of a total land treatment system, as included in their handout information. In that the City has already accomplished the identification of some sites in its preliminary evaluation, and has obtained some initial cost evaluations, he stated that their next step would be the Concept Design. The firm would look at the economic analysis, and based on the number of acres of land necessary to assimilate the wastewater, determine the concept design of the project. Then, knowing the land to be studied, the Drawings and Specifications would be prepared along classical engineerines• • 1 i i • 8 Then Bid Preparation and Review would take place. The cost analysis would indicate how many people would be necessary to bring a project of this type in within cost. This would be followed by the Construction & Related Services, that is, actually getting the bids turned into a product in the field. With regard to a Operation & Maintenance Manual, Dr. Overcash stressed this implementation. He has found that often the operator of the imple- mented system has not been thoroughly trained and this manual would aid in the implementation of the system. He added that a Long Term Monitoring Evaluation has been employed by a number of land treatment systems, once or twice a year, which provides an objective outside review of how the system is working. This objective review often provides management in the municipal organization with a true picture of how the project is functioning to date. He stressed their area of expertise is in the Concept Design phase of the project He said that all succeeding phases of the project depend heavily on the results of the concept design. That is, how much land is required, what type of vegetation is involved, where the monitoring wells should be placed. If a successful concept design is not maintained, there are often negative results once the system is in place, such as negative public focus, due to odor, or other unfavorable results. He added that Law Engineering is considered in the forefront of Concept Design work, particularly in the south, and indicated that state regula- tory agencies have called upon them to provide their engineers with training in such states as Georgia, Virginia, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, and Missouri, as well as being called upon by Region IV EPA. He added that Law Engineering was responsible for writing significant chapters of the EPA Design Manual,for Municipal Wastewater, and that they are likewise involved in the authoring and reviewing of a manual which is forthcoming from the EPA on municipal sludege. In the area of research, he stated that Law Engineering is involved in the evolution of land treat- ment technology, which is an area of substantial interest to the EPA. Dr. Overcash also referred to the diversity of their experience in the treatment of umnicipal wastewater. In terms of concept design, Law has completed 55 systems. In addition, they have done concept design on 73 industrial systems -- from hazardous waste to food processing waste He added that the waste from Fayetteville caiutot be characterized strictly as domestic waste - there is industrial input. The experience gained by Law, he felt, would be important in terms of making sure that those criteria for industrial input are matched in the municipal wasterwater system at Fayetteville. When asked by Director Noland how many of their systems were operational, Dr. Overcash mentioned that the Clayton County system is operational. On the other hand, the system at Ft. Meyers was deemed infeasible, as a result of the conclusions reached in their concept design work. He added that the soils and the movement of water in the system are controlling factors which could alter the feasibility of implementing a system. As an alternative, the Argyle Forest system has seemed to be infeasible, and it is now on target, though not yet constructed. They added that of the 55 systems for which they have completed concept designs, approximately 20-30 of these systems are operational. 1 1 4 • • 9 Director Sharp asked Dr Overcash why they had been specific in their report in stating that the system would take 40-50% of the land referred to in the Facility Plan. Dr. Overcash stated that for the purpose of these contract negotiations, this figure was a "best guess" of the number of acres that should be tested. Director Todd mentioned that Law Engineering has worked as subcontractor on most of the systems mentioned in their proposal, and Dr. Overcash stated that that was correct, and that they had worked with whatever organization was in charge of funding on the project, and, most typically, in working with municipalities in the past the Architectural Engineer worked directly with the municipality and was in charge of the project. He added that they usually worked in conjunction with sanitary engineers on sanitary sewer improvements, extension of sewer systems, etc. He again reiterated the value of the concept design in determing the detailed evaluation of the soil, topography, and the ability to treat waste and move water through the soil. Glenn Taylor then spoke to the group and stated that Dr. Wade Nutter, along with Dr. Overcash, is the second recognized national authority in land treatment. He added that Dr. Nutter has been the project manager for two municipal systems that are over 20 million gallons per day He added that Dr. Nutter has authored several Core of Engineer publications dealing with land treatment, both spray irrigation and rapid infiltration and cold region applications. Glen Ferguson then spoke to the group and stated that the Concept Design phase of the project was termed the input segment of the project. He stated that the output segment of the project would consist of determination of storage requirements, vegetation selection and management, environmental review, and cost projections and implementation. Mr. Ferguson added that Dr. Overcash and Nfr. Wallace had stated the commitment of Law Wngineering to complete the project within the 14 week time period. He added that their schedule lays out which phases would be handled first. He stated that the laboratory evaluation can be begun before on-site testing is completed, and as soon as these results are received they would begin working on the land requirement phase. Director Johnson referred to their project in Helen, Georgia, (the slow rate irrigation system), and asked what the approximate cost of that project was in comparison to other systems. Nt. Ferguson stated that it was most cost effective because it was 100% funded by local funds, with no federal funding involved. He added that it will be designed for 500,000 gallons per day, and the cost of the system would be approximately $500,000. He added that in comparison to other systems, this is the fourth municipal system in the past year which is outside of 201 funding. Director Sharp asked about their statement that they could make contact with fanners within the first week and in a matter of days begin the evaluation. They responded that it is their assessment that access to the sites can be made with little difficulty. They sited as an example the project in Clayton County, where their initial investigation was of road right-of-ways, power line right-of-ways, and public access roads, and there they send out crews to work in those areas and the crews were given instructions that if they were asked about what they were doing, the response was that they were sent out to put a "hole in the ground" and that's exactly what they did. It worked well because they were 4 4 i • • 10 able to identify landowners, and they were able to identify areas which they wanted to look at more closely, and in that they were already starting sane of the site work, they then moved into specific areas of concern. They added that they have found that in dealing with landowners in the past they have sent out letters requesting the people in the area to cane for a meeting where they would be told what the engineering team planned to do on their land, with their approval. He stated that the type of equipment they intended to use would not be damaging to their land, and they would not have to get on every tract of land, but.would identify soil types frau representative samples. Law Engineering concluded their presentation by thanking the group for their attention, and they submitted their sealed bid proposal to City Engineer Don Bunn. DISCUSSION It was determined that the vote would take place and if no one firm got five votes, the vote would again take place between the two firms which received the most votes. The bid fee proposals would be reviewed after the vote. Vote - First Vote CH2M-Hill Osborne Sharp Bumpass Grimes Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Law Engineering Lancaster Todd Johnson Bunn Noland City Engineer Bunn then read the amounts the firms had presented in their sealed bids. He added that the City had not specified how they wanted the bid proposals to be presented. Second Vote CH2M-Hill Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Law Engineering Osborne Lancaster Sharp Todd Bumpass Johnson Grimes Bunn Noland CH2M-Hill had two costs itemized -- if both the split flow and total flow concepts are pursued, the final total cost would be $139,700.00; if the total flow White River alternative were pursued the final assessment, leaving out the split flow would be $92,300.00 Mt. Bunn stated that their proposal had indicated that they felt they might be able to eliminate the split flow an the basis of preliminary studies, rather than field investigation. Law Engineering's bid proposal fee was $106,000. • } 1 Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., total estimated fee is $90,600.00. Their fixed fee/profit figure is $11,537.00; total estimated cost of the work is $79,063.00. It was noted that these are estimated costs, the fees would be negotiable. He noted that Metcalf & Eddy are required by the EPA to give hourly rates, i.e. Principal $30.00 per hour, Project Manager, 21.00 per hour, Project Engineer, $15.00 per hour. He noted that the profit figure for Metcalf & Eddy of $11,000 is a fixed fee; their cost fee is variable. It was determined to select Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. and to select the scope of work to be performed to insure that the project will be performed along the lines preferred by the City, even though the scope of the project may change during the project. The costs per hour could also be negotiated. It was determined that the subcontracting work to be done by McGoodwin, Williams & Yates could be paid out from Metcalf & Eddy. McClelland Consulting Engineers, in that they are more involved in the managerial aspects of the project, may have arranged a different manner of payment, but it has been included in the bid proposal to the City. Director Noland reiterated the necessity to negotiate stop points into the final contract. Don Bunn reiterated that both presentations, from Metcalf & Eddy and CH2M-Hill, had indicated stop points, but that hadn't been the case in the Law Engineering presentation. Director Noland changed his vote to Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., thus awarding the contract, subject to negotiation, to that firm. AATOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.